Citation Nr: 9827426
Decision Date: 09/14/98 Archive Date: 09/17/98
DOCKET NO. 96-29 336 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington,
West Virginia
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the
veteran’s death.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Inc.
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
W. R. Steyn, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active military service from August 1965 to
May 1967.
This appeal arises before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(Board) from an April 1996 rating decision of the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington,
West Virginia, which denied the appellant’s claim seeking
entitlement to service connection for the cause of the
veteran’s death.
The appellant’s claim was initially before the Board in
September 1997, from where it was remanded for additional
development.
REMAND
When the appellant’s claim was before the Board in September
1997, it was remanded for development to include obtaining
additional treatment records in regard to the veteran’s
Behcet’s syndrome, leukemia, anemia, neuropathy, and
thrombocytopenia. The RO wrote to the appellant asking that
she indicate where and when the veteran had received
treatment for the listed disorders and complete a Form 21-
4142 with the full mailing address where the veteran had
received such treatment.
After the appellant complied with such request, an attempt
was made by the RO to obtain records from the Thomas
Jefferson Hospital. However, by letter dated November 4,
1997, the medical record department at the Thomas Jefferson
Hospital sent a letter to the RO indicating that a written
authorization to release medical information signed and dated
by the patient was necessary. Such an authorization form was
sent to the RO. However, the RO did not send such form to
the appellant in order that she could complete it.
Therefore, the appellant’s claim must again be remanded so
that the appellant’s authorization can be obtained and an
effort can be made to obtain the veteran’s records from the
Thomas Jefferson Hospital.
On the appellant’s original authorization form from October
1997, she indicated that the veteran had received treatment
at the VA Medical Center in Cleveland in 1971. These records
must also be obtained by the RO before the adjudication of
the appellant’s claim. Also, she indicated that the veteran
was treated in 1987 at the Northwestern University Hospital
and by a Dr. “Krates”. An attempt should also be made to
obtain these records. The RO should request that the
appellant supply the address of Dr. “Krates”. Finally,
although an effort was already made to obtain the treatment
records from the CAMC hospital, in light of the need to
obtain the aforementioned records, another attempt should be
made to obtain the veteran’s records from the CAMC hospital.
To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the
appellant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and
to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the
case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development:
1. The RO should take the appropriate
steps to contact the appellant and obtain
the addresses of Dr. “Krates” and the
Northwestern University Hospital. The RO
should also mail the authorization form
sent by the Thomas Jefferson Hospital to
the appellant and request that she
complete it.
2. After the appellant submits the
appropriate authorization form and
addresses identified in paragraph one,
the RO should then obtain copies of
treatment records from the Thomas
Jefferson Hospital, specifically from
Drs. Fort and “Tash” or “Tahmoush”,
from the CAMC Hospital, specifically from
Drs. Istfan and Previll, from the VA
Medical Center in Cleveland for the time
period around 1971, and from Dr.
“Krates” and the Northwestern
University Hospital for the time period
around 1987.
3. After the development requested above
has been completed, the RO should again
review the appellant’s claim of
entitlement to service connection for the
cause of the veteran’s death. If the
benefit sought on appeal remains denied,
the appellant and her representative
should be furnished with a supplemental
statement of the case and given the
opportunity to respond thereto.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate
outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action
unless otherwise notified.
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the
Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of
Veterans Appeals for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See The Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L.
No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5101 (West Supp. 1998) (Historical and Statutory Notes).
In addition, VBA’s ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, M21-1, Part
IV,
directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases
that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-
1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03.
G. H. SHUFELT
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the
Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)
(1996).
- 2 -